Electronic Journal of Ichthyology April, 2008 1: 31-42

SPECIES RICHNESS, DISTRIBUTION PATTERN AND HABITAT USE OF FISHES IN THE TRANS-,

Sivakumar, K.

Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, India [email protected]

Abstract The cold desert of Ladakh is a catchment of the , which contains three major sub- basins: the Indus, Shyok and Zanskar of the higher Himalayas. A survey on lotic water fishes was conducted between April and September 2001 and covered a wide altitude ranging from 2750 m to 5386 m above mean sea level. In total, 41 streams and six rivers were sampled. A total of 32 species of fishes were recorded in the streams and rivers of Ladakh landscape: of which, five were exotic species primarily confined to some sites in the Indus subcatchment. Species richness in the Indus subcatchment was higher (29 species) than other two catch- ments. The Zanskar (10 species) had the fewest species. The current distribution pattern of fish in the Ladakh indicates that this landscape is a transient zone between the palearctic and oriental realms. Fishes in the Trans-himalayas highly used the streams which have more algal growth on the substratum. Snowtrout maculates, which occur in abundant in the Ladakh waters would be useful for fisheries.

Keywords: fish, snowtrout, Ladakh, Trans-Himalayas, stream fishes

Introduction confined to few localities that too focus on The study of fish and fisheries has had a commercial fishes. long and distinguished history in India (Hora Habitat changes in Himalayan waters have 1951), but relatively little attention has been been reviewed (Shrestha 1990) and have paid to fish conservation here. Large number had a major impact on the distribution and of freshwater fishes are threatened due to the abundance of native fishes in mountain fragile nature of freshwater habitats and the streams. The migration routes of important pressure, which they are under in all parts of native fishes such as mahseers (Tor putitora the world from human activities (Le Cren and Tor tor), snow trout ( spp), 1964; Maitland 1993; Primack 1998). In In- and Rheophilic species (Psilorhynchus dia, there are an estimated 670 species of pseudochensis, Balitora brucei etc) have freshwater fishes and 227 of these are been impeded because of reservoirs across threatened (Anon 1997). The high percent- rivers. In India, extensive surveys and re- age (35%) of endemic species being threat- search on fresh water fishes have been car- ened is perhaps due to their localised distri- ried out in Kerala, Tamilnadu, Maharashtra bution with other man-induced threats (Pri- and the North Eastern states (Buceros mack 1998). Threats to Indian freshwater 2000), however, no information exists on fishes include habitat destruction, fragmen- the status, distribution pattern and ecology tation, poisoning, pollution, pesticides, de- of fishes in Ladakh. Despite the highly inter- structive fishing unsustainable harvest, poor esting ecological and geographical features scientific practices in fishing and an ever- of the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh (Nath growing demand. In India, freshwater fishes 1994), its fauna have been very inadequately are a poorly studied group, and most of the explored (Hora 1951). In this connection information available is from a few studies an inventory on fishes in

31 Sivakumar, 2008 Fishes of Ladakh

Ladakh was thought to be carried out to un- tain chain (79o27’16” to 79o26’01” E and derstand the distribution pattern of fishes 34o35’37” to 35o24’33” N, Figure 1). Trans- and their habitat so that a workable conser- Himalayas is a fragile biome, characterised vation action plan could be prepared. In this by extremes of both climatic and biotic fac- paper the spatial distribution pattern and tors. Very low productivity and a high de- habitat use of Ladakh fishes are discussed. gree of resource seasonality and unpredict- ability give rise to a unique diversity of life Materials and methods that is persistently prone to any kind of dis- Study area turbance. Flora and fauna of this cold desert This study was conducted in three major are adapted themselves to extreme condi- subcatchments of Ladakh: Indus, Shyok and tions and have low population abundance Sanskar. Ladakh represents the Trans- (Anon 2001). Himalayas sector of the Himalayan moun-

Figure 1. Study area showing the sampling sites in Ladakh.

32 Sivakumar, 2008 Fishes of Ladakh

The river valleys are characterised by riv- subcatchment and hence, equal percentage erbed vegetation communities mostly domi- of streams were sampled in the other two nated by Hippophae sp., Myricaria sp., and subcatchments. Of the 41 streams, 17 were Caragana sp. In the recent past, large scale of the Indus subcatchment, 13 of Zanskar plantations of dwarf willow Salix and 11 of Shyok subcatchment. Three sites daphnoides have been raised along the in 100 m intervals, which starts from the stretch of river valleys. The area receives mouth of the stream were sampled in each less than 100-mm annual rainfall with little stream. Different kinds of nets such as cast snow and is recognised as cold desert. Most net, gill net, mosquito net and lines were rivers, streams and lakes of the Ladakh are used for sampling to maximise the catch and of glacial origin and are frozen from No- cover as much species as possible. Each vember to March. Ladakh has several major sampling point was located using a GPS. river systems including the shyok and Nubra Species and number of individuals of each rivers along the Karakoram range to the species of fish were noted. north; the Indus river system passing from Both omnivorous and herbivorous fishes east to west in the entire central Ladakh; and were caught using lines with atta (wheat three smaller river systems of the Zanskar, paste) as bait and carnivorous fishes were Suru and Dras with a large number of tribu- caught using lines with small fish or meat. In taries in the Zanskar. small streams, mosquito nets were used to The entire Ladakh region is in the catch- catch fish, but in the fast flowing stream ment of the river Indus, however, this large both mosquito nets and 1x1 cm mesh sized catchment can be divided into three smaller fishing nets were used. In fast flowing sub-basins/catchments: Shyok, Indus and streams, fishes were disturbed and forced to Zanskar. Shyok and Nubra rivers and its seek stone shelter and then collected with tributaries (streams) along the Karakoram bare hands. This method was extremely ef- range to the north are collectively called the fective and was used to catch snowtrouts and Shyok catchment. In the Shyok catchment, suckers. streams originate from very steep slopes. Three smaller river systems (Zanskar, Suru Habitat observation and Dras) are collectively called as Zanskar Microhabitats observations were made catchment. Zanskar catchment is a transient from all rivers and streams wherever sam- zone between the Trans-Himalayas and pling took place. For each observation, fish Greater-Himalayas, which is reflected by its were identified to species, their standard own unique vegetation communities that do length and weight was measured using not occur in the other two catchments The vernier calliper and Pasola spring balances, Indus catchment covers the area of down- and the following microhabitat variables stream of the Shyok and the Zanskar catch- were measured: maximum depth of water ments. Indus catchment has heterogenous column, water velocity at the surface and at landscape, which includes undulating terrain the substratum. A pygmy type current meter to flat valley (Anon 2001). was used to measure velocities and depths of water10. Each substratum category (from 1 to Fish sampling 14) was scored in percentage based on a From April to September 2001, 41 modified Wentworth particle scale where: streams and six rivers were sampled and rep- 1= boulders, 2 = boulder with gravel, 3 = resented altitudes ranging from 2750 m to boulder with sand, 4 = cobble, 5 = pebble, 6 5386 m above mean sea level. A total of 17 = pebble with boulder, 7 = pebble with streams found in the Indus were approach- gravel, 8 = pebble with sand, 9 = gravel, 10 able to do sampling which was the 65% of = gravel with pebble, 11 = gravel with sand, the total available perennial streams in this 12 = sand, 13 = silt, and 14 = rocky.

33 Sivakumar, 2008 Fishes of Ladakh

Water temperature and turbidity were cies richness across catchments was varied, measured using thermometer and Secchi disc for example, Indus catchment had highest respectively. Nearby vegetation types and number of 29 species, followed by the Shyok channel slopes were also recorded. Discrimi- catchment which had 18 species and 10 spe- nant analysis was used to identify suitable cies were present in Zanskar (Figure 2). Of habitat characters for fish. Non-parametric the 32 species, a total of eight species Dip- tests were used to explore differences in tychus maculatus, Diptychus Schizothoraich- variation in microhabitat characters between thys stoliczkae, Triplophysa microps, Triplo- catchments, and also to identify the differ- phya tenuicauda etc were common and dis- ences in distribution patterns of fishes among tributed in all three catchments (Table 1). catchments. Apart from exotic species, Nemacheilus arafi, Schizothoraichthys labiatus and Data analysis Schizothorax richardsonii were some of the Status of the fishes were assessed based on species exclusively caught in the Indus their abundance. Species occurring at fewer catchments. Indus snowtrout than 15 sampling stations (total number of conirostris occurred in Indus and Zanskar, but sampling stations includes 41 streams and 6 not in Shyok. Zanskar did not have any spe- rivers) was called ‘rare’, if it was found in 16 cies exclusive to this catchment. However, to 30 sampling stations was considered ‘not Shyok had three species, which were exclu- common’ and if it occurred in more than 31 sively present there. All three species are un- sampling stations then it was assessed as der the process of identification. The most ‘common’. common fish in the catchments of Indus and Length weight relationship were assessed Zanskar was Diptychus maculatus but its from measurement of total weight (W) and population size was very small in the Shyok total length (L), and the curves parameters a catchment where Schizopygoposis stoliczkae and b were determined by Log 10 transforma- was dominant. tion of raw data, following (Woottan 1991). The relationship between length and weight Microhabitat of different catchments.-The provides an index frequently used. This index microhabitat parameters such as water veloc- is the condition factor (Lagler 1952), ity, water temperature, altitude and algae 3 KTL=(100000 x W)/L . The degree of adjust- were selected as the important determining ment of the model studied was assessed by factors of fish distribution, and these micro- the correlation coefficient of Pearson (r) for habitat variables that explained 99.1 % of the logaritmized data of the length weight re- variance in Discriminant Analysis test. Water lationship. depth, and turbidity were not included in the analysis since these factors were varied Results within a day in a sampling point and depends Status.-Of the 32 species recorded, 10 upon the intensity of sun light. During morn- were rare, 9 were not common, and another 9 ing hours, stream water was clear with less were common. Remaining 4 species were not depth, however, in afternoon, water level goes assessed due to their alien nature. These alien up due to snow melt. Turbidity also changed species were restricted to fishery farms except due to this changes in the water flow. The Oncorhynchus mykiss which was also found discriminant analysis identified algae and in natural habitats (Table 1). temperature as factor 1, and water velocity and elevation as factor 2. Sites with low algae Distribution pattern of fishes.-Average and low temperature were not suitable places species richness at any sampling site in for the fish whereas sites with lower water Ladakh was 2.1± 0.3, and there was little dif- velocity and more algae had more fish (Figure ference in the species richness across sam- 3). The discriminant analysis also shows that pling stations (Kruskall Wallis test, χ2 the Indus has more sites suitable for fish than =0.242, d.f, = 46, p = 0.886). However, spe- other two catchments .

34 Sivakumar, 2008 Fishes of Ladakh

Figure 2. Fish species richness in the different catchments of Ladakh was heterogeneous. Indus had more number of species than other two catchments.

Figure 3. In Ladakh, fish species richness was very high in the habitats of high altitude with less water current, more algae and high temperature. The predicted model shows that fishes will not occur in the streams which has less algae and low temperature. Each data point in the graph is representing a sampling site. (Less = 1 to 3 species, medium = 4 to 6 species, high = 7 to 10 species).

35 Sivakumar, 2008 Fishes of Ladakh

Table 1. Status and distribution of lotic fishes in Ladakh.

S.l # Species Name Indus Zanskar Shyok Status 1 Amblyceps mangois (Hamil- Cat fish 1 0 0 Rare ton, 1822) 2 Catla catla (Hamilton, 1822) Catla 1 0 0 Not accessed (Exotic) 3 Cyprinus communis (Lin- Scale carp 1 0 0 Not accessed naeus, 1758) (Exotic) 4 Cyprinus specularis Mirror carp 1 0 0 Not accessed (Lacep¨de, 1803) (Exotic) 5 biswasi (Tal- Ladakh snow- 0 0 1 Rare war, 1977) trout 6 Diptychus maculates (Stein- Tibetan snow- 1 1 1 Common dachner, 1866) trout 7 Tibetan snow- 1 0 1 Common Diptychus spp with two yel- trout low band* 8 Diptychus spp with one yel- Tibetan snow- 1 1 1 Not common low band* trout 9 Labeo calbasu (Hamilton, Rohu 1 0 0 Not accessed 1822) (Exotic) 10 Nemacheilus arafi (Mirza & Loach 1 0 0 Rare Banarescu, 1981) 11 Nemacheilus botia (Hamil- Loach 1 1 0 Rare ton, 1822) 12 Nemacheilus fascimaculatus Loach 1 0 1 Not common (Mirza & Nalbant 1981) 13 Nemacheilus gracilis (Day, Snow Loach 1 0 0 Rare 1877) 14 Nemacheilus hutchinsoni Snow Loach 1 0 0 Rare (Hora,1936) 15 Nemacheilus microps (Stein- Snow Loach 1 1 1 Common dachner, 1866) 16 Nemacheilus montanus Loach 1 0 1 Not common (McClelland, 1839) 17 Nemacheilus rupecola Loach 1 0 0 Rare (McClelland, 1838) 18 Nemacheilus stolliczkae Snow Loach 1 1 1 Common (Steindachner, 1866) 19 Nemacheilus tenuicauda Snow Loach 1 1 1 Common (Steindachner, 1866) 20 Oreinus sinuatus (Gray, 0 0 1 Rare 1832) 21 Ptychobarbus conirostris Indus snow- 1 1 0 Not common (Steindachner, 1866) trout 22 Salmo gairdnerii gairdnerii Rainbow trout 1 0 0 Not common (Walbaum, 1792)

36 Sivakumar, 2008 Fishes of Ladakh

23 species 0 0 1 Not common (banded)* 24 Schizopygopsis stoliczkae Kinnaur 1 1 1 Common (Steindachner, 1866) snowtrout 25 Schizothoraichthys labiatus Kunar snow- 1 0 0 Rare (McClelland, 1842) trout 26 Schizothorax richardsonii Alwan snow- 1 0 0 Rare (Gray, 1832) trout 27 Snow Loach 1 0 1 Not common Triplophysa choprai (Hora, 1934) 28 Triplophysa gracilis (Day, Snow Loach 1 0 1 Not common 1877) 29 Triplophysa griffithi (Gün- Snow Loach 1 0 1 Not common ther, 1868) 30 Triplophysa ladacensis (Gün- Snow Loach 1 0 1 Common ther, 1868) 31 Triplophysa microps (Stein- Snow Loach 1 1 1 Common dachner, 1866) 32 Triplophysa tenuicauda Snow Loach 1 1 1 Common (Steindachner, 1866) 1=presence, 0=absence, *= Unidentified species

Table 2. Legnth-Weight relationship and condition factor (KTL) of two most common and commercially important fishes Diptychus maculates and Schizopygopsis stoliczkae of Ladakh.

Catchements Diptychus maculatus Schizopygopsis stoliczkae Length- Average N r Length- Average N r weight rela- KTL weight rela- KTL tionship value tionship value Indus Log10W=- 1.41 15 0.96 Log10W=- 1.14 14 0.98 3.967+2.563 3.560+2.367 Log10L Log10L Zanskar Log10W=- 1.48 10 0.94 Log10W=- 1.28 98 0.97 5.594+1.984 3.461+2.334 Log10L Log10L Shyok Log10W=- 1.22 31 0.96 Log10W=- 1.49 19 0.99 3.808+2.436 6.157+3.644 Log10L Log10L Over all Log10W=- 1.32 56 0.96 Log10W=- 1.30 131 0.97 3.667+2.411 3.523+2.361 Log10L Log10L

37 Sivakumar, 2008 Fishes of Ladakh

Table 3. Information about the sampling sites and their habitats.

Catchment Site Location Altitude Temperature Water Substratum Shore vegetation Turbidity Species Total fish (nearest (E & N) (MSL in meter) (o C) Depth Richness in catch village name) (m) Indus Chilling 34.02.239 77.12.055 3214 21 0.5 Rocky and pebble riverine forest Clear 0 0 Indus Choglamsar 34.06.264 77.35.218 3235 18 2.8 Pebble with sand No vegetation very high 1 24 Indus choglamsar 34.06.268 77.35.213 3235 25 0.1 pebble No vegetation clear 1 21 Shyok Chushul 33.35.957 78.38.638 4385 6 0.4 boulders with gravel No vegetation not clear 3 9 Shyok Deskit 34.33.615 77.32.510 3115 13 0.75 sandy grasses clear 10 210 Indus Hemis Cheng 34.18.924 77.04.782 3746 8 1.3 pebble No vegetation clear 8 14 Shyok Hundur 34.35.186 77.27.775 3169 4 0.4 pebble No vegetation clear 0 0 Zanskar Kargil 34.33.190 76.08.185 2750 18 3 boulders with sand No vegetation very high 2 18 Indus Keshar 33.25.014 78.13.511 4004 9 0.6 pebble with boulders No vegetation clear 0 0 Indus Khardongla 34.15.779 77.36.906 4805 4 0.3 rocky with boulders No vegetation clear 0 0 Shyok Khardung 34.22.513 77.39.622 4140 5 1.25 boulders with sand grasses clear 0 0 Shyok Khardungla 34.16.719 77.36.274 5386 4 0.4 rocky with boulders No vegetation clear 0 0 Indus Likir 34.16.736 77.12.155 3513 16 0.93 rocky with sand plantation clear 4 18 Indus Mahi 33.15.930 78.28.127 4096 25 0.3 boulder some bushes clear 2 18 Indus Nimu 34.09.824 77.19.167 3119 8 5 Sandy No vegetation very high 0 0 Shyok Noth pullu 34.19.745 77.38.669 4663 5 0.6 gravel with mud grasses clear 0 0 Shyok Panamik 34.47.567 77.31.586 3232 12 1.8 boulders with sand No vegetation clear 10 17 Shyok Panamik 34.47.363 77.31.988 3244 4 0.75 pebble No vegetation clear 0 0 Zanskar Penzila 33.50.880 76.23.635 4087 2 0.5 pebble with gravel No vegetation clear 2 6 Indus phey 34.08.025 77.28.816 3197 14 3 gravel with sand No vegetation clear 2 15 Indus Phey 34.08.025 77.28.534 3197 11 1 pebble with gravel No vegetation not clear 10 15 Indus Phyang 34.12.152 77.30.620 3735 4 0.65 rocky with boulders No vegetation clear 1 15 Shyok Rungchuk 34.27.152 77.44.165 3232 16 1.2 gravel with pebble No vegetation very high 4 33 Zanskar Rungdum 34.02.804 76.20.744 4004 8 1.2 gravel with sand No vegetation not clear 1 21 Indus Sankar 34.10.887 77.35.305 3415 3 0.37 cobble No vegetation clear 0 0 Indus Sankar 34.10.938 77.35.204 3415 3 0.37 cobble No vegetation clear 0 0 Zanskar Sankra 34.13.244 75.58.322 3142 8 0.4 rocky with pebble No vegetation clear 0 0 Indus Saspu Chey 34.17.991 77.09.648 3597 7 1.25 rocky with boulders shrubs clear 2 48 Shyok Satoo 33.51.677 78.17.861 4399 3 0.8 sand with pebbles marsh with grasses clear 4 27 Shyok Satoo 33.51.677 78.17.952 4399 3 0.8 sand with pebbles marsh with grasses not clear 2 28

38 Sivakumar, 2008 Fishes of Ladakh

Shyok Semur 34.37.156 77.37.550 3156 5 0.5 pebble No vegetation clear 0 0 Indus Shaboo 34.08.065 77.37.985 3559 8 0.3 boulder No vegetation clear 1 24 Indus Shang 33.51.675 77.41.970 3758 16 0.4 boulders with gravel No vegetation not clear 5 60 Indus Shey 3235 16 2 marsh with soil grasses very high 5 18 Zanskar Shila (Pipiting) 33.28.695 76.53.563 3535 12 1.5 boulders with sand No vegetation very high 1 1 Shyok Spanmik 33.54.575 78.27.727 4263 13 >2 gravel with sand No vegetation clear 0 0 Indus Sumdo Do 34.06.280 77.12.288 3202 16 0.43 rocky and pebble riverine forest clear 1 0 Shyok Tirith 34.32.854 77.39.322 3263 15 0.6 gravel with pebble No vegetation clear 2 2 Indus Tok Po 34.18.894 77.07.196 3690 8 0.68 rocky with boulders shrubs clear 1 1 Indus Unknown 34.04.751 78.07.205 5265 4 0.4 boulders with pebble No vegetation clear 0 0 Indus Unknown 34.02.051 78.12.640 4004 14 0.6 sandy grasses clear 2 6 Shyok Unknown 33.50.741 78.33.928 4266 14 >3 gravel with sand aquatic plants clear 0 0 Shyok Unknown 33.55.557 78.15.966 4327 4 0.7 boulders with gravel No vegetation clear 3 3 Shyok Unknown 33.50.077 78.21.865 4512 4 0.8 boulder No vegetation clear 5 83 Shyok Unknown 33.42.104 78.28.023 4817 4 0.5 boulder No vegetation clear 2 12 Shyok Unknown 33.24.445 78.48.068 4586 11 0.3 boulder No vegetation clear 0 0 Indus Unknown 33.15.400 78.24.110 4302 22 0.6 gravel with boulders No vegetation clear 3 32 Indus Unknown 34.18.490 76.37.558 3607 18 0.5 Gravel with pebble No vegetation not clear 2 12 Zanskar Unknown 34.11.011 75.55.835 3192 6 0.8 pebble with gravel grasses on bank clear 1 3 Zanskar Unknown 33.42.477 76.32.742 3791 2 0.3 boulders with gravel No vegetation clear 4 81 Indus Upshi 33.49.730 77.48.957 3245 8 2 pebble with sand No vegetation very high 1 9

39 Sivakumar, 2008 Fishes of Ladakh

Substratum was not important in the dis- upstream for spawning during the summer criminant analysis, but a separate analysis season. Fry and fingerlings grow in the clean was carried out on this habitat variable be- water of the streams during the summer. cause earlier studies reported that substratum During winter, when streams get frozen fin- is an important microhabitat variable for gerlings start to migrate towards large rivers, freshwater fishes (Wikramanayake 1989). where they settle down in little running wa- Highest species richness occurred in water ter to survive. Since stream water flow was bodies which had the substratum composi- diverted into agriculture fields in Ladakh, tion of pebble with gravel (13 species), sand the migration of fishes between upstream (10 species), pebble (9 specise), boulder and river was completely stopped. This with gravel (8 species) and boulders (7 spe- could be a major factor, which was respon- cies). No fishes were recorded where the sible for threatening of several species of substratum was made up of only cobble and fishes in Ladakh. rock. The most commonly occurred species The Indus catchment had more ideal mi- D. maculatus was found in nine substrates crohabitats these were highly preferred by and another common species S. stolickae the fishes either for spawning or survival. was found in eight substrates. In general, This could be a reason as to why there was a there was no specific substrate preference by large number of species occurred in this the fishes in Ladakh (Kruskal Wallis test, χ2 catchment. Apart from these habitats, Indus = 9.259, p = 0.508, see also Table 3). is comparatively larger than the other two catchments and as already mentioned that Size and condition factor of common Shyok and Zanskar are part of the Indus fishes of Ladakh. -Legnth-Weight relation- catchement if seen out a landscape level. It ship and condition factor (KTL) of two most is assumed that area of the catchment could common as well as commercially important also be an important factor that determining fishes Diptychus maculates and Schizopy- the species richness (MacArthur & Wilson gopsis stoliczkae of Ladakh was assessed 1963) which relates to the finding of this (Table 2). The relative condition of both study that larger area of Indus catchment had the species were almost similar in the a large number of species. The most com- Ladakh (Table 2), however, the condition mon species of Diptychus maculates and factor of Shyok population of Diptychus Schizothoraichthys stoliczkae are feed by maculates was comparatively low among all scraping the surfaces of stones and rocks. three catchments. But the condition factor of Algae including benthic diatoms are the Shyok population of Schizopygopsis sto- most important food materials obtained in liczkae was better than other catchments this way (Hutchinson 1936). This might be populations. In general, Zanskar appears to an another reason for the presence of more be a better place for D. maculates but for S. species in algal rich areas. stoliczkae the Shyok was better. Condition factor of fishes in Ladakh. - Discussion The relative condition of adults of two Status and distribution pattern of lotic commonly occurred species D. maculatus fishes in Ladakh. - Habitat changes in Hi- and S. stolickae was smilar in the Ladakh, malayan waters have had a major impact on however, S. stolickae was in better condition the distribution and abundance of native in Shyok but D. maculatus was not. Zanskar fishes (Shrestha 1990). More than 30% of appears to be a better place for D. maculates the lotic water fishes of Ladakh were as- but for S. stoliczkae the Shyok was better. sessed as rare. This might be due to habitat Reason for this difference was not arrived destruction and anthropogenic pressure on due to one seasonal data. However, this the breeding sites i.e. streams.. In Ladakh, study shows that the Zanskar is good for D. snow-trout are known to migrate towards the maculates angling during the summer season

40 Sivakumar, 2008 Fishes of Ladakh and the Shyok is better for S. stoliczkae an- also like to thank Menachem Goren and gling. anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which helped a lot to im- Conservation. -Exotic fishes were intro- prove the quality of this paper. Funding for duced into the Ladakh fishery farms to meet the project was provided by CLFRS, Wild- the local fish protein requirement. However, life Institute of India. I am also grateful to nowadays these farms are not playing major the fishery department and wildlife depart- role in protein supply since majority of the ment of Jammu and Kashmir state, India. local people do not eat fish. Predatory alien species Oncorhynchus mykiss may grow on References fry and fingerlings of native species. This is Anon. (1997). Conservation assessment and the only alien species found outside the fish- management plan for freshwater fishes of ery farms, however, impact of this species India. Technical report. National Bureau on the native fish needs to be studied. Spe- of Fish Genetic Resources, Lucknow. 46 cies richness in the Indus catchment was pp. higher (29 species) than in the other two Anon. (2001). Conservation biodiversity in catchments. It would be better to give more the Trans-Himalaya: New initiatives of attention in Indus catchement while planning field conservation in Ladakh. First Annual for Protected Area Network and its man- Technical Report (1999-2000). Wildlife agement. During the summer, brooders start Institute of India. 169 pp. migrate to the upstream where the tempera- Buceros. (2000). Bibiliography of papers ture is ideal for spawning. Fry, fingerlings, from wetlands. Bombay Natural History young and adult seen together in streams Society. 45 pp. during this period. In Ladakh, most of the Hora, S. L. (1951). Knowledge of the an- villages are located at the mouth of the down cient Hindus concerning fish and fisheries stream in order to divert stream flow to agri- of Indian. J. of Asiatic Soc. 17: 145-169. cultural fields. Stream flow was diverted Hutchinson, E. G. (1936). Ecological obser- placing stones across the streams. These vations on the fishes of Kashmir and In- kinds of bundh (barrier) stopped the migra- dian Tibet. Ecological Monographs. tion of fishes and it also noticed that there 9(2):145-182. was no water connection between streams Lagler, K. F. (1952). Freshwater fishery Bi- and river due to complete diversion of ology. (Second edition), W.M.C. Brown stream flow into agriculture fields. Construc- Company Publishers, Iowa. 421 pp. tion of trout friendly weirs in selected Le Cren, E. D. (1964). The interaction be- streams will allow snowtrouts to migrate tween freshwater fishes and nature conser- feely and breed successfully. Since Dip- vation IUCN publications, New series. 3: tychus maculatus and S. stoliczkae are suc- 431-437. cessful fishes in the streams and rivers of MacArthur, R.H. and Wilson, E.O. (1963). Ladakh, a careful research on breeding biol- An equilibrium theory of insular zo- ogy of these species would be useful for ogeography. Evolution. 17: 373-387. aquaculture. Maitland, P. S. (1993). Conservation of freshwater fish in India in Advances in fish Acknowledgments: research (ed. R. B. Singh). 1: 349-364. I thank my team members Skalzang, Ja- Nath, S. (1994). The Ichthyogeography of gadish and Sanggi for their assistance during Jammu Province (Jammu and Kashmir the sampling. I am grateful to P. R. Sinha, state) India. Rec. Adv. Fish. Eco. Limn. V.B. Sawarkar, S.K. Mukerjee, V.B. Eco-conserv. 3: 103-119. Mathur, Y.V. Bhatnagar, B.S. Adhikari, V.P. Primack, R. (1998). Essentials of Conserva- Uniyal, Qamar Qureshi, K. Ramesh, Suresh- tion biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunder- kumar and Rinchen for their help. I would land, Mass. 559 pp.

41 Sivakumar, 2008 Fishes of Ladakh

Shrestha, T. K. (1990). Rare fishes of Hima- Wikramanayake, E. D. and Moyle, E.D. layan waters of . J. of Fish Biology. (1989). Ecological structure of tropical 37A: 213-216. fish assemblages in wet-zone streams of Sri Lanka. J. Zoo. London. 218: 503-526. Woottan, R. J. (1991). Ecology of Teleost Fishes. Chapman and Hall, London- Newyork. 404 pp.

======Copies of the PDF file of this work have been deposited in the following publicly accessible libraries: 1. Na- tional Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. USA; 2. Natural History Museum, London, UK; 3. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, USA; 4. Department of Ichthyol- ogy, Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 75005 Paris, France; 5. Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt/Main, Germany; 6. National Museum of Natural History, Leiden, The Netherlands. 7. The Gitter- Smolartz Library of Life Sciences and Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel; 8. The National and university Library, Jerusalem, Is- rael; 9. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. USA; 10. South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Gra- hamstown, South Africa; 11. The National Science Museum, Tokyo, Japan; 12. The Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden.

42